Hello everyone, thought I'd ask this here are bitcoin tends to attract all sorts of creazies (found my way here, didn't I?)I've justn finished reading the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand ans as usual after reading her books, I'm confused. On the one hand there is a quite good storytelling skill, with mastery of the hero with a thousand faces as well as emphatic developement. On the other hand there is a very strong ugliness of spirit, appeal to man's (and woman, everyone is shit) baser instincts and social theories that generally only hold up to a mild breeze..

I'm not sure what I'm trying to discuss, but there should be enough fodder here for a few pages.

Oh yes, a question! Why do I like those books? I'm a dyed in the wool troskyite who has been that way for a very long time. Why do I like her style?b She's the moral equivalent of the root of negative one.

help?

When people ask me what I'm reading, I tell them a treatise about facist archistecture (the fountainhead) or motor design, how do we explain this shamefulk attraction to her work?

She was a sociopath and other sociopaths love her.

She simply stated what was right, that people have a right to the wealth they produce, what they do with it is their business.

When your wealth comes from shitting on others you don't deserve your wealth.

Hello everyone, thought I'd ask this here are bitcoin tends to attract all sorts of creazies (found my way here, didn't I?)I've justn finished reading the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand ans as usual after reading her books, I'm confused. On the one hand there is a quite good storytelling skill, with mastery of the hero with a thousand faces as well as emphatic developement. On the other hand there is a very strong ugliness of spirit, appeal to man's (and woman, everyone is shit) baser instincts and social theories that generally only hold up to a mild breeze..

I'm not sure what I'm trying to discuss, but there should be enough fodder here for a few pages.

Oh yes, a question! Why do I like those books? I'm a dyed in the wool troskyite who has been that way for a very long time. Why do I like her style?b She's the moral equivalent of the root of negative one.

help?

When people ask me what I'm reading, I tell them a treatise about facist archistecture (the fountainhead) or motor design, how do we explain this shamefulk attraction to her work?

She was a sociopath and other sociopaths love her.

She simply stated what was right, that people have a right to the wealth they produce, what they do with it is their business.

When your wealth comes from shitting on others you don't deserve your wealth.

No protagonist in Atlas Shrugged got their money by "shitting on others". I don't like that the solution proposed was "let the world burn", but they definitely deserved their wealth. And, perhaps, at the stage that they were at in the novel, letting it burn may have been the only option.

When your wealth comes from shitting on others you don't deserve your wealth.

This is a very socialist way of thinking, i.e. you can only gain wealth by shitting on others, therefor people with wealth don't deserve it.

Really the only way to get wealth without shitting on others is by creating something someone wants, the other way is to use force, generally government, legislation, tax, subsidies etc. Thats wealth gained by shitting on others (i.e. robbed from people who produce), and thats something that the government does and facilitates others (banks, various corps) with as well.

Look at us here, we're creators, ok so we're small for now but everything in bitcoin that is worth anything is so because it was created by someone and it brough value to others. GLBSE, deepbit, BitPay, MtGox and even bitcoin itself.

If you want to attack corruption and the people who get their wealth by stealing, look at the government and their supporters.

The problem with Marxism is not it's stated goal (a classless, stateless society - not a bad direction to head), but in it's method of getting there. Making a stateless society through the state is like fucking for celibacy. No matter how hard you try, it's not going to work.

Here's an idea: If you want a classless, stateless society, why don't we work on the state first, then worry about class. If communism is so much better than market anarchy, then market anarchists would join communes in droves, and your classless society would have been achieved.

Of course, Bakunin was right. Tell it to the Marxists of today and they still won't listen. They won't even display the proper emotional response to show that they comprehend the sentences. To my experience at least...

I can loosely relate to the idea that who Marx was as a person might have resulted in a body of work that ultimately led people down a horrible path, but I can't help but think that the reason Marxism became a religion is not ultimately about Marx. It resembles the claim that Aristotle's doctrines led to the dark ages. Okay, I won't go as far as to associate Marx with Aristotle, but you get the idea.

She simply stated what was right, that people have a right to the wealth they produce, what they do with it is their business.

The problem is, I don't see a complete picture when I take this perspective. For instance, it's ultimately unclear how things get initiated. Who the producer is and what rights they have are mostly determined by the temporary understanding of the interested group. Objective measures don't work well under scrutiny. It's clearer when you create a web site all by yourself, and gets messier as the work involves choices of other persons.

Or, for instance, we can question wealth itself. It's easy to understand the contractual hierarchy, but is there any justification for third persons to recognize the contract between unrelated agents?

So on and so forth... I think the basic fact is, biological boundaries are suitable for defining personhood because of obvious practical reasons, and social structures based on human individuality are more efficient because of this. But there is nothing more to it.

As a side note, it's been stated countless times in my life that it's my duty to carry the burden because I'm the strong person, especially by family and close friends. That's why the story told in Atlas Shrugged made me smile a bit. Yes, being among people who despise the idea of welcoming weakness would be a good thing. It's a good story. Still, mediocre writing skills.

The problem is, I don't see a complete picture when I take this perspective. For instance, it's ultimately unclear how things get initiated. Who the producer is and what rights they have are mostly determined by the temporary understanding of the interested group. Objective measures don't work well under scrutiny. It's clearer when you create a web site all by yourself, and gets messier as the work involves choices of other persons.

Or, for instance, we can question wealth itself. It's easy to understand the contractual hierarchy, but is there any justification for third persons to recognize the contract between unrelated agents?

So on and so forth... I think the basic fact is, biological boundaries are suitable for defining personhood because of obvious practical reasons, and social structures based on human individuality are more efficient because of this. But there is nothing more to it.

I have no idea what you're saying with this, could you....rephrase it please?

As a side note, it's been stated countless times in my life that it's my duty to carry the burden because I'm the strong person, especially by family and close friends. That's why the story told in Atlas Shrugged made me smile a bit. Yes, being among people who despise the idea of welcoming weakness would be a good thing. It's a good story. Still, mediocre writing skills.

Well that is the crux of the matter, you're the strong person, and you'll help people out of the goodness of your heart, because you choose to. Otherwise you're just an ox with a heavy yoke being driven for the gain of others and you have no say.

This is where religion, love, charity etc. comes into play, and Rand simply argues (correctly) that once you have wealth as a result of your effort, it's yours and what you do with it is up to you. One of her main characters Reirden, spent a great amount of his wealth helping others, but thats besides the point.

The point being that the wealth they created is theirs, and they are under no obligation to share.

I have no idea what you're saying with this, could you....rephrase it please?

I don't know which part you're referring to, but I was just making random points about why I think she is limiting her inquiry. I'll rephrase them anyway.

What is the process you use to find out who really is responsible for the wealth produced, other than the contractual structure? If we confine the question to the contracts, then how can we call any contract within that structure invalid (like taxes)? If we define it by initiative and will, how do we find out who are responsible for those?

How can you prove to me that if you hadn't appropriated that land and planted that tree, there wouldn't be a tree there? Aren't property rights just as involuntary as the taxes?

Ultimately, what is a person? What are the boundaries of a person? Is there any part of an individual which is separate from the society? How can I say I'm acting more rational than an ant? Why shouldn't a human be an ox with a heavy yoke being driven for the gain of others?

I'm aware of some of her answers to these but find them unsatisfying. Nefario, I don't think there is a central point we don't agree on, I'm just curious about the metaphysical projections of her reasoning or lack of it. Seems to me that she tried to fit idealistic concepts within a materialistic world, which is an impossible challenge.

I thought Atlas was an interesting story. But she likes to exhault the virtuous side of the guilded age wealthy elites while glossing over the awful outcomes it brought most Americans. She has to invent greedy government agencies and forget about the profound greed that brought down the markets in the 20's. I think "There will be blood" is a better look into the minds of such barrons.

I'm sorry but she didn't have to invent these agencies, she grew up in the SovietUnion and knew full well what the application of communism was, besides today do you not see Atlas shrugged playing out in slow motion?

Fair enough. But her devotees seem to think this is how America was in the twenties. With the downtrodden wealthy fighting the good fight against the "ministry of science". In fact the rail, oil, and steel industries were practically criminal enterprises. Chewing up and spitting out workers via the "company town" system. I do not see this happening now either. Companies are gaining power over our lives not loosing power to the government. I don't fear the government because they are incompetent. I do fear business, because they are efficient and would enslave us all if not for the rule of law.